God Can Deliver the Damned From Hell?
#31
QuisUtDeus Wrote:Is this astonishing because you assumed it was Catholic dogma, or because you know it to be Catholic dogma based on something you can cite?

I'm floored I have to explain why this statement floored me!

Because Hell is eternal and the particular judgment is final is it not? This is the Traditional teaching. So to hear the CE state that it is possible to believe as a Catholic that God goes around, at times, liberating damned souls from eternal Hell, is an amazing statement.
Reply
#32
In the end of time, hell will be abolished, the damned rehabilitated ... an ancient teaching condemned ... Apocatastasis
 
Quote:(Greek, apokatastasis; Latin, restitutio in pristinum statum, restoration to the original condition).

A name given in the history of theology to the doctrine which teaches that a time will come when all free creatures will share in the grace of salvation; in a special way, the devils and lost souls.

This doctrine was explicitly taught by St. Gregory of Nyssa, and in more than one passage.  It first occurs in his "De animâ et resurrectione" (P.G., XLVI, cols. 100, 101) where, in speaking of the punishment by fire assigned to souls after death, he compares it to the process whereby gold is refined in a furnace, through being separated from the dross with which it is alloyed .

The punishment by fire is not, therefore, an end in itself, but is ameliorative; the very reason of its infliction is to separate the good from the evil in the soul.   The process, moreover, is a painful one; the sharpness and duration of the pain are in proportion to the evil of which each soul is guilty; the flame lasts so long as there is any evil left to destroy.  

A time, then, will come, when all evil shall cease to be since it has no existence of its own apart from the free will, in which it inheres; when every free will shall be turned to God, shall be in God, and evil shall have no more wherein to exist.  Thus, St. Gregory of Nyssa continues, shall the word of St. Paul be fulfilled: Deus erit omnia in omnibus (1 Corinthians 15:28), which means that evil shall, ultimately, have an end, since, if God be all in all, there is no longer any place for evil (cols. 104, 105; cf. col. 152).  

St. Gregory recurs to the same thought of the final annihilation of evil, in his "Oratio catechetica", ch. xxvi; the same comparison of fire which purges gold of its impurities is to be found there; so also shall the power of God purge nature of that which is preternatural, namely, of evil. Such purification will be painful, as is a surgical operation, but the restoration will ultimately be complete.  

And, when this restoration shall have been accomplished (he eis to archaion apokatastasis ton nyn en kakia keimenon), all creation shall give thanks to God, both the souls which have had no need of purification, and those that shall have needed it. Not only man, however, shall be set free from evil, but the devil, also, by whom evil entered into the world (ton te anthropon tes kakias eleutheron kai auton ton tes kakias eyreten iomenos).

The same teaching is to be found in the "De mortuis" (ibid., col. 536). Bardenhewer justly observes ("Patrologie", Freiburg, 1901, p. 266) that St. Gregory says elsewhere no less concerning the eternity of the fire, and of the punishment of the lost, but that the Saint himself understood this eternity as a period of very long duration, yet one which has a limit. Compare with this "Contra Usurarios" (XLVI, col. 436), where the suffering of the lost is spoken of aseternal, aionia, and "Orat. Catechet.", XXVI (XLV, col. 69), where evil is annihilated after a long period of time, makrais periodois.

These verbal contradictions explain why the defenders of orthodoxy should have thought that St. Gregory of Nyssa's writings had been tampered with by heretics. St. Germanus of Constantinople, writing in the eighth century, went so far as to say that those who held that the devils and lost souls would one day be set free had dared "to instil into the pure and most healthful spring of his [Gregory's] writings the black and dangerous poison of the error of Origen, and to cunningly attribute this foolish heresy to a man famous alike for his virtue and his learning" (quoted by Photius, Bibl. Cod., 223; P.G. CIII, col. 1105). Tillemont, "Mémoires pour l'histoire ecclésiastique" (Paris, 1703), IX, p. 602, inclines to the opinion that St. Germanus had good grounds for what he said.   We must, however, admit, with Bardenhewer (loc. cit.) that the explanation given by St. Germanus of Constantinople cannot hold. This was, also, the opinion of Petavius, "Theolog. dogmat." (Antwerp, 1700), III, "De Angelis", 109-111.

The doctrine of the apokatastasis is not, indeed, peculiar to St. Gregory of Nyssa, but is taken from Origen, who seems at times reluctant to decide concerning the question of the eternity of punishment. Tixeront has well said that in his De Principiis (I.6.3) Origen does not venture to assert that all the evil angels shall sooner or later return to God (P.G., XI, col. 168, 169); while in his "Comment. in Rom.", VIII, 9 (P.G., XIV, col. 1185), he states that Lucifer, unlike the Jews, will not be converted, even at the end of time. Elsewhere, on the other hand, and as a rule, Origen teaches the apokatastasis, the final restoration of all intelligent creatures to friendship with God. Tixeront writes thus concerning the matter: "Not all shall enjoy the same happiness, for in the Father's house there are many mansions, but all shall attain to it.
-------------------------------------
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm
Reply
#33
QuisUtDeus Wrote:The consensus of theologians does provide a degree of certainty, varying as shown above, but not as much as that of a dogmatic pronouncement.

As I said, the "consensus of theologians" provides us with no moral certainty. First off we don't know what a "consensus" is nor who the "theologians" are that must provide one. Even if the Church defined these parameters, there is still no moral certainty to what these "theologians" will come up with. Last I checked, they aren't indefectible nor do they have the keys. A "consensus" of "theologians" after VCII taught that artificial contraception was a-ok and many priests counseled couples this way before Humanae Vitae. Were these priests allowed to be "morally certain" their advice was correct?

The opinions of theologians can assist us in forming a belief in an area where the Church allows it, but the consensus opinions of theologians, in and of itself, does not provide the basis for a moral certainty.
Reply
#34
Quote:Because Hell is eternal and the particular judgment is final is it not? This is the Traditional teaching. So to hear the CE state that it is possible to believe as a Catholic that God goes around, at times, liberating damned souls from eternal Hell, is an amazing statement.

You're not answering his question Stevus, and I think you know it! You're being strangely coy for some reason.

So I will ask it again, rephrased: are you amazed because you believe you've found a heresy in CE? Or because you are surprised to find out it really isnt a heresy after all?

Also, no one has addressed the Pope Gregory and Trajan story.
Reply
#35
7HolyCats Wrote:
Quote:Because Hell is eternal and the particular judgment is final is it not? This is the Traditional teaching. So to hear the CE state that it is possible to believe as a Catholic that God goes around, at times, liberating damned souls from eternal Hell, is an amazing statement.

You're not answering his question Stevus, and I think you know it! You're being strangely coy for some reason.

So I will ask it again, rephrased: are you amazed because you believe you've found a heresy in CE? Or because you are surprised to find out it really isnt a heresy after all?

Also, no one has addressed the Pope Gregory and Trajan story.

Coy? I've answered the question. I've explained why I was amazed at the statement. I must say I'm even more amazed that educated FishEaters are so apparently dense or playing dumb that they can't see what's amazing in the statement.

I'm not interested in the word heresy. I nowhere mentioned heresy and I could care less about heresy in this context. I made a simple statement that I was floored at that sentence in the CE for exactly what it asserted. Nothing more nothing less.
Reply
#36
StevusMagnus Wrote:
QuisUtDeus Wrote:The consensus of theologians does provide a degree of certainty, varying as shown above, but not as much as that of a dogmatic pronouncement.

As I said, the "consensus of theologians" provides us with no moral certainty.

You seem to contradict Fr. Ott and the CE.

Quote:First off we don't know what a "consensus" is nor who the "theologians" are that must provide one. Even if the Church defined these parameters, there is still no moral certainty to what these "theologians" will come up with. Last I checked, they aren't indefectible nor do they have the keys. A "consensus" of "theologians" after VCII taught that artificial contraception was a-ok and many priests counseled couples this way before Humanae Vitae. Were these priests allowed to be "morally certain" their advice was correct?

Re-read Fr. Ott and the CE.  It doesn't have to be indefectible.  Moral certitude doesn't mean that it is 100% guaranteed to be right.  It means that we don't have to worry about heresy if we get it wrong.

Limbo is not dogma - it is the consensus of theologians and the Church Fathers.  Are you saying we cannot proceed with moral certitude by believing in limbo?

We do know what a consensus is - see Denziger.  They define what level of certitude exists for different beliefs.

Quote:The opinions of theologians can assist us in forming a belief in an area where the Church allows it, but the consensus opinions of theologians, in and of itself, does not provide the basis for a moral certainty.


You don't understand the language.  Moral certainity is not de fide.  Moral certainty is not supernatural certainty.  It allows us to think, or believe, without incurring a penalty.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03539b.htm

Quote:There are several kinds of
[-]
  •
Reply
#37
StevusMagnus Wrote:I must say I'm even more amazed that educated FishEaters are so apparently dense or playing dumb that they can't see what's amazing in the statement.

Well, for someone who apparently doesn't understand the degrees of theological certitude and what moral certitude is, that's like throwing rocks in glass houses.

Quote:I'm not interested in the word heresy. I nowhere mentioned heresy and I could care less about heresy in this context. I made a simple statement that I was floored at that sentence in the CE for exactly what it asserted. Nothing more nothing less.


I didn't think you were being coy before, but now I certainly do.

If you were astonished that "The notion that in itself, it is
[-]
  •
Reply
#38
Oh, and to answer this:

Quote:A "consensus" of "theologians" after VCII taught that artificial contraception was a-ok and many priests counseled couples this way before Humanae Vitae. Were these priests allowed to be "morally certain" their advice was correct?

Actually, yes.  Anyone who followed the advice of those priests would not have incurred the penalty of sin.  If you ask your pastor "is X a sin" and have no reason to believe he is in error, you can proceed with moral certitude based upon his answer.

The Church (and Christ) don't condemn people for mistakes as long as they do the best they can.

As far as the priests giving that advice go, if it was before HV, and if it was an open question (and I'm not sure how open it was before HV), then they also did not sin in giving that advice.

After an explicit pronouncement comes out, the people and priests need to cease in their activity and assent.  If they do that, there is no problem.

Reply
#39
QuisUtDeus Wrote:
StevusMagnus Wrote:
QuisUtDeus Wrote:The consensus of theologians does provide a degree of certainty, varying as shown above, but not as much as that of a dogmatic pronouncement.

As I said, the "consensus of theologians" provides us with no moral certainty.

You seem to contradict Fr. Ott and the CE.

Where do Fr. Ott or the CE state that the mere consensus of theologians creates a moral certainty?

Quote:Re-read Fr. Ott and the CE.  It doesn't have to be indefectible.  Moral certitude doesn't mean that it is 100% guaranteed to be right.  It means that we don't have to worry about heresy if we get it wrong.

I'm quite aware of this.

Quote:Limbo is not dogma - it is the consensus of theologians and the Church Fathers.  Are you saying we cannot proceed with moral certitude by believing in limbo?

You stated a "consensus of theologians", not a "consensus of theologians combined with Tradition and the Fathers". The more apt analogy is the artificial birth control analogy. You are asserting that a "consensus of theologians" in and of itself gives us moral certainty on an issue. First define consensus, then define theologian, then show where it is taught that this combination in and of itself gives us moral certainty.

Quote:We do know what a consensus is - see Denziger.  They define what level of certitude exists for different beliefs.

So what is a consensus?

Quote:You don't understand the language.  Moral certainity is not de fide.  Moral certainty is not supernatural certainty.  It allows us to think, or believe, without incurring a penalty.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03539b.htm

I do understand the language.


Quote:Thus, we can proceed with a degree of moral certitude proportionate to what the Church says the theological grade of certainty is for a particular proposition.


Right, the Church.


Quote:The greater the consensus of the Schola Theologica, the greater we can proceed with moral certitude in the belief of the theological proposition.  When it reaches de fide, there is no alternative but to believe.  The discussion is finished, Rome has ruled for all time.

Define the "Schola Theologica" and tell us what number of them equals a "consensus" through Magisterial statements, then show through Magisterial statements how a consensus opinion of these men, in and of itself, obliges us to a believe their proposition to a moral certainty.



Reply
#40
QuisUtDeus Wrote:Oh, and to answer this:

Quote:A "consensus" of "theologians" after VCII taught that artificial contraception was a-ok and many priests counseled couples this way before Humanae Vitae. Were these priests allowed to be "morally certain" their advice was correct?

As far as the priests giving that advice go, if it was before HV, and if it was an open question (and I'm not sure how open it was before HV), then they also did not sin in giving that advice.

After an explicit pronouncement comes out, the people and priests need to cease in their activity and assent.  If they do that, there is no problem.

So priests did not sin by telling married couples they were right to use artificial contraception, an intrinsic evil, on the basis of a consensus of theologians? In fact they acted with a moral certainty in doing so?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)